Downstream Costs and their relationship to blasting

by
Jack Eloranta
J Eloranta & Associates
8 June, 1999
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review the pertinent literature concerning the
relationship between blasting and downstream handling and processing costs.
The 9 listed studies are examined and reviewed. The proliferation of papers on
this subject attest to the widespread interest in this long debated issue. So
significant, it transcends not only drilling and blasting, but also mining, crushing
and grinding. This subject is not a novelty that will simply pass away. It will
,instead, become the pole star that guides mines to optimized equipment
selection and energy usage.

Kanchibotla
This work, done at JKMRC in Queensland, Australia, modeled blasting crushing
and grinding at an open-pit, gold mine. Powder factors varied from .58 kg/m^3 to
.96 kg/m^3. The attached graph shows the SAG mill electrical consumption for
three blast designs.

As powder factor
rose from .58 to
.66; there was
a12% drop in
10.5
kWh/t for grinding.
10.0
(Fig. 1) However,
9.5
a much larger
9.0
powder factor
8.5
increase, to .96
kg/m^3, netted
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
only a small
Kg/M^3
improvement.
The higher
powder factor
Figure 1 (Kanchibotla, 1998)
resulted in fine
material that flowed freely through the crusher which saw the savings instead of
the mill. If the setting of the crusher was adjusted downward; the slope of the
curve would remain steep.
Kw-Hr/T

Powder Factor vs Electricity

Furstenau

Relative $/T

Powder Factor vs Total Cost

Figure 2

Full-scale blasting plus lab

grinding and crushing tests
were done on consolidated
0.85
limestone. Blast effort was
increased by 25% by
0.7 0.8 0.9
1
1.1 1.2
increasing charge length
Lbs/T
and by 56% decreasing
burden and spacing. (Fig.
2) A single particle roll mill and a small-scale ball mill were used for sample
testing. A 10% overall savings was seen in total mining and processing with the
longer powder column. A 7% savings was achieved with closer spacing and
burden.
0.95
0.9

It appears that the powder factor was at .75 lbs/T in the reference area, .94 lbs/T
in the increased column length zone and 1.17 in the reduced burden and spacing
test. An optimum point may be inferred in the vicinity of .94 lbs/T, however, since
there is latitude to increase column length; the highest powder factor could have
been attained with less drilling.

McCarter

Figure 3 (McCarter, 1996)

This work employs a load cell device (UFLC) to measure the mean specific
fracture energy (MSFE) of pairs of samples: one exposed to blasting, one not. Of
the 7 rock types tested, 5 showed pre-conditioning benefits from blasting.
Succinct statistics are provided. A casual statistical comparison indicates a 19%
difference in MSFE from blasting.

Nielsen

Figure 4 (Nielsen, 1995)

This work at the University of

Trondheim in Norway
involves grinding pairs of
blasted samples; one from
next to the blasthole and one
from farther away. Variables
included: rock type, blasting
agent and grinding time.
Samples were saw cut to 500
mm by 500 mm by 500 mm
cubes which were drilled and
shot. Fragments were
collected and sorted into

near-borehole and edge pieces. Samples were crushed to -8 mm and identical

distributions were synthesized to feed a 250 mm ball mill. Bond work indices
were calculated from these tests. Blast pre-conditioning reduced work indices to
36% to 88% of reference samples.

Mertz
Translation from Russian of work done at the GOK open cast experiment are
difficult to interpret, but provide some tantalizing insights. Blast energy was
varied from .8 kg/m^3 (.56lb/T) up to as high as 20kg/m^3 (14.0 lbs/T). Findings
were published up to 5.5 kg/m^3 (3.9 lbs/T).

Hardness

rock strength vs powder factor (Mertz)

20
15
10
0

Lbs/LT

Figure 5 (Mertz)

Power consumption in crushing fell by 40%

when the powder factor rose from .56 lbs/T
to 3.15 lbs/T. Magnetic separation was
used to recovery magnetite in the
operation studied. The liberation of the ore
was also improved due to micro-cracks
between mineral boundaries formed during
blasting.

MacKenzie
Alan S. MacKenzie
did this groundbreaking work at the
Lac Jeannine Mine in
Quebec. Broad in
scope and based on
five years of
operational data, his
work forms the basis
of many current
investigations.
Grinding costs are
not considered,
however.

Figure 6 (MacKenzie, 1966)

Eloranta

Operating speeds and costs from more than five years of iron ore mining and
processing in Minnesota are presented. Regressions are plotted to eliminate
variables including ore grade and weather.
Powder Factor vs Total Cost
$1.40
$1.20
TOTAL COST

$/TON

$1.00
$0.80

PROCESS COST

$0.60
$0.40
$0.20

DRILL & BLAST COST

$0.00

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

POWDER FACTOR

Figure 7

Total costs are compared to drill and blast costs and projected to higher powder
factors.
ELECT+TEETH+POWDER $ VS POWDER $
ADJ FOR W/R & TEMP

The assumption
underlying the
$2.15
upper and lower
envelopes is that
$2.10
an inverse
$2.05
relationship does
$2.00
exist between
$1.95
blasting and
$1.90
downstream
$1.85
costs and that
$1.80
the purpose of
$0.25
$0.26
$0.27
$0.28
$0.29
$0.30
$0.31
$0.32
$0.33
$0.34
$0.35
the plot is to
POWDER $/NT PELLETS
shed light on the
Figure 8
slope of that line.
The broad
scatter is due to seasonal changes, geological variations and large purchases in
ELECT+TEETH+POWDER ( $/NT PELLETS)

$2.20

one month. Validation will require higher powder factor tests in the lower right
portion of the data.

Kojovic

Total Cost

Very extensive studies were conducted at Mt. Coot-tha quarry in Brisbane,

Queensland, Australia. With
assistance from JKMRC, much more
Figure 9
work was done than is summarized
(Kojovic,1995)
here. Changes in blast design were
done by adjusting the burden and
Powder Factor vs Total Cost
spacing alone. Powder factor went
from .52 kg/m^3 to .61 kg/m^3.
$1.00
Some of the reported improvements
were: a 25% increase in loading and
$0.50
handling productivity, saving $.40/T
and a savings in crushing of $.30/T.
$0.00
Total savings were$.70/T less $.05/T
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7 due to increased blasting cost; for a
net savings of $.65/T.
Kg/T

Revnivtsev
This summary highlights but a few of the topics covered. Revnivtsev touches on
many facet of mining and processing. He refers to studies which indicate the
following:
An optimum powder factor of about 2 kg/m^3
Selective disintegration whereby blast energy preferential breaks along
mineral boundaries aiding liberation.
Healing of micro-cracks wherein rock regains strength following blasting
This summary highlights but a few of the topics covered.
Conclusions
Table 1 summarizes the results of the authors. It is clear that none have found an
upper limit to powder factor. The apparent minimum in Furstenaus data should be
re-examined with an eye toward less drilling but a longer powder column.

Author

PF Range

Kanchibotla
Furstenau
McCarter
Niesen
Mertz
MacKenzie
Eloranta
Kojovic

.58 to .66
1.07 to 1.30
N/A
N/A
.8 to 3.9
N/A
.7 to 1.07
.52 to .61

Table 1 Summary

Reduction

Parameter
12%
10%
19%

12% - 64%
40%
N/A
15%
($.65/T savings)

Kwh/T
Total Cost
MSFE
Kwh/T
Kwh/T
Mine/Crush
Total Cost
Total Cost